Selective Capture of Magnetic Wires to Particles in High Gradient Magnetic Separation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper expressed the practical issues and results on simulative and experimental investigation. The trajectries of magnetically-activated particles clearly showed the worth of this technique.
I would like to point the issues, as follows,
In Fig. 1, x axis in the left figure and that in the right figure is different. Please assign 'z' to one of them.
The size of eqs. looks large. Please use smaller font.
In Fig. 2, 3, the difference of between magnetic and non-magnetic lines is not clear. Please use different lines.
In the line 186, HGGS might be misprinting of HGMS.
In Fig. 5, the scales should be added to show the exact size of membranes.
In the line 223, r/min should be explained somewhere in the text.
The end of the comments.
Author Response
Reviewer #1:
The paper expressed the practical issues and results on simulative and experimental investigation. The trajectories of magnetically-activated particles clearly showed the worth of this technique.
I would like to point the issues, as follows:
(1) In Fig. 1, x axis in the left figure and that in the right figure is different. Please assign 'z' to one of them.
(2) The size of Eqs looks large. Please use smaller font.
(3) In Fig. 2, 3, the difference of between magnetic and non-magnetic lines is not clear. Please use different lines.
(4) In the line 186, HGGS might be misprinting of HGMS.
(5) In Fig. 5, the scales should be added to show the exact size of membranes.
(6) In the line 223, r/min should be explained somewhere in the text.
The end of the comments.
Responses to Reviewer # 1:
Thanks for the reviewer’s appreciation and recommendation to revise this manuscript. We have done our best to revise the manuscript, according to the reviewer.
(1) Figure 1 is improved in the revised manuscript in the light of reviewer.
(2) I totally agree with reviewer, and the font of the Equations was reduced in the revised manuscript.
(3) I totally agree with reviewer. But, in the simulation, the trajectory lines of particles were automatically drawn by COMSOL Multiphysics software, where the type and color of lines could not be changed in that software.
(4) “HGMS” is substituted for “HGGS” in the lines of 232 in the revised manuscript.
(5) Figure 5 is improved in the revised manuscript in the light of reviewer.
(6) 180 r/min means that the slurry moving up and down 180 times per minutes in separating zone, as clearly described in the lines of 285-286 in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Several specific editing comments: line 85 should be Stokes rather than Storks, line 110 van der Waals, line 148 Hamaker, line 175 causing, not coursing, caption for line 183 should be above and below rather than up and down, line 186 shod be HGMS, not HGGS. I believe that the quality of this paper would be significantly improved with a more comprehensive Conclusion section. In my opinion it is actually the weakest part of the paper and does not at all reflect the quality of the work.
Author Response
Reviewer #2:
Several specific editing comments:
(1) line 85 should be Stokes rather than Storks, line 110 van der Waals, line 148 Hamaker, line 175 causing, not coursing, caption for line 183 should be above and below rather than up and down, line 186 shod be HGMS, not HGGS.
(2) I believe that the quality of this paper would be significantly improved with a more comprehensive Conclusion section. In my opinion it is actually the weakest part of the paper and does not at all reflect the quality of the work.
Responses to Reviewer # 2:
Thanks for the reviewer’s appreciation and recommendation to revise this manuscript. We have done our best to revise the manuscript, according to the reviewer.
(1) We have done our best to correct the spelling errors throughout the text, for instance:
1) “Stokes” is substituted for “Storks” in the line of 93 in the revised manuscript.
2) “Waals” is substituted for “Wals” in the line of 117 in the revised manuscript.
3) “Hamaker” is substituted for “Hammark” in the line of 164 in the revised manuscript.
4) “above and below” is substituted for “up and down” in the caption of Figure 4 in the revised manuscript.
5) “HGMS” is substituted for “HGGS” in the lines of 232 in the revised manuscript.
(2) I totally agree with reviewer, and we have done our best to rewritten the Conclusion section in the revised manuscript, as clearly described in the lines of 429-447 in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a very interesting paper. I have a few comments for you to consider:
I want to see the data of grades in rejects, yield and recovery. In the theoretical study, magnetic and non-magnetic particles were completely separated. However, in your experimental study, you did not present information on liberation. Can you comment how liberation spectra of your samples affect your research results? How do you correlate your theoretical study with your experimental study? For example, can you predict grades in the concentrates using the model? If yes, can you present your theoretical results in the charts of your experimental results for comparison? Magnetic separation is a single layer separation technology. Fast feeding, slow feeding and pulsating frequency can affect layer numbers around the wires. Could you please comment the effect of layer numbers of particles on your separation results? How do the layer numbers of particles around the wires affect your research conclusions?
Author Response
Reviewer #3:
This is a very interesting paper. I have a few comments for you to consider:
(1) I want to see the data of grades in rejects, yield and recovery.
(2) In the theoretical study, magnetic and non-magnetic particles were completely separated. However, in your experimental study, you did not present information on liberation. Can you comment how liberation spectra of your samples affect your research results?
(3) How do you correlate your theoretical study with your experimental study? For example, can you predict grades in the concentrates using the model? If yes, can you present your theoretical results in the charts of your experimental results for comparison?
(4) Magnetic separation is a single layer separation technology. Fast feeding, slow feeding and pulsating frequency can affect layer numbers around the wires. Could you please comment the effect of layer numbers of particles on your separation results? How do the layer numbers of particles around the wires affect your research conclusions?
Responses to Reviewer # 3:
Thanks for the reviewer’s appreciation and recommendation to revise this manuscript. We have done our best to revise the manuscript, according to the reviewer.
(1) “Grades of rejects”, “yield” and “recovery” are terms concerning a HGMS process or separator using a real matrix, in which the capture capacity of the matrix is much higher than the magnetic particles from feed, and they are used to evaluate the general HGMS performance. However, “grades of capture products” and “capture mass weight” are terms on concerning the capture of magnetic wires, in which the capture capacity of wires may be much lower than the magnetic particles from feed, and they are used to analyze the capture characteristics of magnetic wires. So, “TiO2 grade of capture product” and “capture mass weight of single wire” are used in this paper.
(2) The effect of particle size and liberation spectra of material on the magnetic capture selectivity of wire is inserted in the section of “4.3” in the revised manuscript.
(3) Until today, the theoretical analysis and simulations can only be used to qualitatively analyze the capture characteristics of magnetic wire and the motion trajectory of particle in HGMS process. So, they cannot be used to accurately predict the grade of capture product.
(4) In a real HGMS process, magnetic particle are captured on magnetic wires in multi-layers, and they are called magnetic deposits as used in many early literatures.
Indeed, fast feeding, slow feeding and pulsating frequency affect the layer numbers on the wires. However, HGMS process is only used to separate fine and ultrafine magnetic particles, and the size of particles is usually in the range of several to tens of microns. For such fine particles, until today the observation and detection of the magnetic layers on a magnetic wire or in a real matrix is still not available, so that we can only theoretically comment the effect of layer numbers of particles on separation results, without experimental confirmation, as in the lines 178-183 and lines of 299-304 in the revised manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is in good shape now and can be published. However, the authors should run grammer check and correct some miner English errors.
